Transaction Poll: de Aza for 1 year/$5.75 million

[Edgy MD]

A lot of opinions about the de Aza signing. But no DATA!

Vote and make data!

[fimg=300:t8de1q2o]http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/files/2014/08/USATSI_7890034_154513410_lowres.jpg[/fimg:t8de1q2o] [fimg=400:t8de1q2o]http://www.trbimg.com/img-540e4ed0/turbine/bal-orioles-red-sox-090814-4-20140909/1050/1050x591[/fimg:t8de1q2o]
[fimg=400:t8de1q2o]http://a.fssta.com/content/dam/fsdigital/fscom/mlb/images/2015/09/01/010915-Soccer-Boston-Red-Sox-Alejandro-De-Aza-PI-JE.vresize.1200.675.high.1.jpg[/fimg:t8de1q2o] [fimg=300:t8de1q2o]http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/488162808-alejandro-de-aza-of-the-san-francisco-giants-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=X7WJLa88Cweo9HktRLaNXuszzwz6aQaOkIHD9DNYEJPcjdYwOyd4%2FAB%2BTU2tHDHwX7ldx9WrhXmY8tcU%2BXuo7g%3D%3D[/fimg:t8de1q2o]

[Benjamin Grimm]

I voted indifferent. I don't think I'll mind having De Aza on the team, but I don't like the fact that this seems like it may preclude other and better deals.

[Guest d'Kong76]

[data] Pretty much everyone* said this deal sucks and the Mets mailed it in
for the holidays and are probably set to go to war with what they obtained
thus far (except for maybe some relievers)...[/data]

(*everyone except Ceetar)

[Centerfield]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I voted indifferent. I don't think I'll mind having De Aza on the team, but I don't like the fact that this seems like it may preclude other and better deals.

What he said.

I went indifferent too. The deal itself is not the problem. What the deal represents about the Mets and their offseason plans is the issue.

But that's not De Aza's fault, and not fair to blame him for it. Plus, there is still the chance, however small, that the Mets still do something significant this offseason.

Everyone knows I would have re-allocated assets in a different way, but whatever.

[ashie62]

Ends my hopes pf getting a slugger to replace Cespedes.

CF Lagares/De Aza that's a clown combination.

[Edgy MD]

Amazin' how quickly Mets fans want from ripping management for burying Lagares ago ripping management for not burying Lagares.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

And Kong running for president of Wound Lickers Anonymous.

I get what they're trying to do with De Aza. I'm OK with it. Might work?

[Frayed Knot]

I'd be more OK with this if the reports on his CF defense were better - but I also have no idea how accurate those (sometimes dire) projections are.

[Guest d'Kong76]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: And Kong running for president of Wound Lickers Anonymous.

Nah, I'm done... beating the drum gets old.

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I voted indifferent. I don't think I'll mind having De Aza on the team, but I don't like the fact that this seems like it may preclude other and better deals.

That's why I voted that way, too.

Later

[bmfc1]

As CF said: "The deal itself is not the problem. What the deal represents about the Mets and their offseason plans is the issue."

Not a bad move in the proper context where he's a 4th or 5th OFer but because it means no Yo, no Span, likely Granderson staying at leadoff, too many expectations/lots of pressure for d'Arnaud and Conforto, I voted dislike.

[nymr83]

indifferent - they needed a guy like this and got him. nothing exciting but glad it wasnt multiple years or a lost draft pick for a spare part (Cuddyer!)

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Frayed Knot wrote: I'd be more OK with this if the reports on his CF defense were better - but I also have no idea how accurate those (sometimes dire) projections are.

That's the odd thing about both De Aza and Cabrera: "Traditional" defense stats don't much like either of them at the positions they are imagined for. The Mets at one time at least had proprietary D stats they were going by and wonder if they tell them something else. I as always will go by my own stat, Eyewitness Defense.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Eyewitness account: he has not played much or any CF for any team in his rear view which had any other options there. So, there's that, non-math-majors.

He was cheap, and easy, and yeah, I hope this sucks less in our rearview than I think it will.

[TransMonk]

I'm glad it's only for a year...but I still dislike it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

With Lagares and de Aza, those LaGuardia airplanes better watch out.

[Edgy MD]

I'm trying to think of a Mets free agent signing that was less popular at the point of transaction. Trachsel?

Even the Cuddyer deal polled here at the Pool at a 3.63, on a scale from 1 (hate) to 5 (love). de Aza is under water at 2.5.

[nymr83]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm trying to think of a Mets free agent signing that was less popular at the point of transaction. Trachsel? Even the Cuddyer deal polled here at the Pool at a 3.63, on a scale from 1 (hate) to 5 (love). de Aza is under water at 2.5.

proud to be 1 of only 4 "dislikes" on that shit stain of a deal.

[Centerfield]

I wonder how much of the reaction to Cuddyer/De Aza is influenced by when they occurred in the off-season and the implied messages each carried.

The Cuddyer deal came early in the offseason, and gave the impression that the Mets were being aggressive, and many thought it was a great "first" move. In other words, it symbolized optimism. The Mets were saying, screw the draft picks. We're going for it.

The De Aza deal came late, and its' message has been largely interpreted as "Well, that's all folks". And it became the symbol of disappointment and anger. Unquestionably it was the trigger for a ton of Wilpon backlash.

I think that's what makes it hard to assess each individual deal in a bubble. Even if you try to separate them out, it's hard not to be influenced by the larger group of moves around that deal. If for instance, if last winter, the Mets were intent on, and signed, another top tier free agent, it could have made the draft pick lost from Cuddyer less painful.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Exit polls of this precinct show that wasn't the way we voted. The implied aim was obtaining a center fielder who mashes righties; the team got a guy who does not play a good center field who sorta hits righties okay, and left several ostensibly better options on the figurative market table to do so. Insofar as that goes, yeah, timing matters. But otherwise, the other stuff is just the garnish on the poop entree.

But hey, cheap and no draft pick. ALE-HELL YES

[Edgy MD]

Not so cheap when measured against the anticipated marginal upgrade, though.

de Aza likely gives you more contact than Nieuwenhuis, and more veteran steadiness making him less likely to get lost for two months, but not much more than that. I'm not so confident that he won't still get outplayed by a waiver claim or NRI or assertive fringe player like Ceciliani.

Hopefully, Nimmo will have obviated* him by mid-season and we'll never see.

*Don't tell me there isn't a place in this language for the future perfect tense.

[TransMonk]

Centerfield wrote: I wonder how much of the reaction to Cuddyer/De Aza is influenced by when they occurred in the off-season and the implied messages each carried. The Cuddyer deal came early in the offseason, and gave the impression that the Mets were being aggressive, and many thought it was a great "first" move. In other words, it symbolized optimism. The Mets were saying, screw the draft picks. We're going for it. The De Aza deal came late, and its' message has been largely interpreted as "Well, that's all folks". And it became the symbol of disappointment and anger. Unquestionably it was the trigger for a ton of Wilpon backlash. I think that's what makes it hard to assess each individual deal in a bubble. Even if you try to separate them out, it's hard not to be influenced by the larger group of moves around that deal. If for instance, if last winter, the Mets were intent on, and signed, another top tier free agent, it could have made the draft pick lost from Cuddyer less painful.

I agree with this post.

I can state that I gave the Cuddyer deal a high grade because I thought it was a great start. If I would have known it would have been the ONLY move, I would probably have been much more lukewarm on the acquisition.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Edgy MD wrote: Not so cheap when measured against the anticipated marginal upgrade, though.

Well, yeah. Mine was the sarcastic-applause of silver-linings.

Edgy MD wrote: Hopefully, Nimmo will have obviated* him by mid-season and we'll never see. *Don't tell me there isn't a place in this language for the future perfect tense.

[Applauding your diction more than I expect to cheer de Aza's CF exploits at any point this year]